Gossip site TheDirty.com has lost a bid to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader Sarah Jones, who alleged that she was libeled in posts by users. U.S. District Court Judge William O. Bertelsman in the Eastern District of Kentucky rejected TheDirty's argument that it was immune from liability under the federal Communications Decency Act.

The decision, issued this week, is seen as unusual because it departs from numerous other rulings protecting Web site operators who display defamatory posts authored by users.

Jones alleged in her lawsuit that she was defamed in a post from October of 2009, which accused her of promiscuity, and one in December of 2009, which said she had sexually transmitted diseases, according to court papers. She sued Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, as well as TheDirty.com's operator, Nik Richie, who allegedly edits the sites and adds commentary.

Bertelsman wrote that Jones' allegations warrant further proceedings and set a trial date of June 24.

Bertelsman specifically ruled that TheDirty.com is not entitled to claim immunity under the Communications Decency Act because it goads users into posting questionable material. “The name of the site in and of itself encourages the posting only of 'dirt,' that is material which is potentially defamatory or an invasion of the subject’s privacy,” he wrote.

The judge also said that Richie's role in curating posts and adding responses weighed against immunity. TheDirty.com's operator, Nik Richie, responded to the December post by commenting, “Why are all high school teachers freaks in the sack?” according to the court's opinion. (At the time, Jones was a teacher; she resigned late last year.)

TheDirty's lawyer, David Gringas, said he plans to file an immediate appeal to the 6th Circuit. “The ruling is unprecedented. it is contrary to every previous decision that contains similar facts,” he says.

Gringas, who also represents the gripe site RipoffReport.com, adds that other judges have rejected the view that a Web site operator can lose immunity based on a potentially derogatory name. RipoffReport.com has itself prevailed in lawsuits where companies alleged that they were defamed by users' posts.

Judges around the country also have rejected the position that sites forfeit immunity by editing posts or contributing captions, comments or headlines. For instance, New York's highest court ruled last June that Web site operators can't be sued for libelous posts submitted by users even if those posts are edited or promoted by the site. In that case, the court dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by the head of a realty company stemming from comments on a site run by an employee of a rival real estate company.

Attorneys who aren't connected with the case also saw problems with Bertelsman's ruling. Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman called the decision “troubling and probably lawless.”

Matt Zimmerman, an attorney with the digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, agreed that the matter was wrongly decided. He says that the factors relied on by the judge -- including Richie's editorial control, as well as the site's role as a “forum for people to post salacious material” -- don't affect Web site operators' immunity. “When you boil it down, it seems that the court has a problem with the kind of speech that's going on at the site,” Zimmerman says.

A lawyer for Jones didn't respond to Online Media Daily's request for comment.